Re: [SVN-MIGRATION] Argh!

Herman Radtke wrote: >> She was saying that this is not how svn is usually organized, but >> looking around I see other large projects doing that. > > As a svn user, the current layout is intuitive to me.. However, the > svn book discusses the KDE repository layout as a valid and common > one. It is just not the layout they recommend. Link here: > > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.reposadmin.planning.html#svn.reposadmin.projects.chooselayout > >> for $i in svn ls >> http://svn.php.net/repository/pecl`; svn co $i/trunk > > I am not sure why you would not want the branches. If a branch is > active, any change to trunk needs to be merged into the branch. That's simply not true. Most of trunk (PHP 6) will never be merged into PHP_5_3, for example. Most of APC's trunk at this point will never be merged into the APC_3_0 branch. That doesn't mean those branches aren't active. They are actively maintained and bug fixes get committed there, but all interesting development goes on in HEAD/trunk. I will predominantly be interested in trunk and I want a pecl directory checkout that has all the trunk versions of all the pecl extensions sitting right there. > If a > branch is inactive it should be removed via 'svn delete <branch>'. Hell no. This is revision control. Nothing should ever be deleted. I want to be able to go back and checkout and potentially fix any old release, but that doesn't mean I want to see all 37 old branches for all the various pecl extensions at all times. With CVS this was trivial. With SVN this is a pita. -Rasmus